From: Nils Weinander (nils_w@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat 06 May 2000 - 22:30:58 EEST
Me:
>
> > I prefer to use avatar in a Gloranthan context to mean a
> > partial manifestation of a deity, something done by a deity
> > who, due to transcendent nature, restraint by the Compromise
> > or otherwise is not able or willing to be immanent.
Alex:
>
> Interesting clause, that last! Mind you, one has to set the
> 'transcendence bar' pretty low for this to be strictly consistent
> with existing usage, vis frex Yelm/Antirius. (Emerson!)
Could you please elucidate a bit here. How much is the word
> How do people think the different forms of 'identification' differ
Hmm, quite an interesting issue. I'd say the effects are very
This has a direct parallell in the ongoing Red Emperor
avatar really used in Gloranthan publications? And what is
the problem with Yelm/Antirius in this respect?
> from each other? Is heroforming vs. divine devotion vs 'avatarism'
> a different primarily in 'scale' of object, or is the distinction
> more a matter of Method?
similar, but the method differs: heroforming is initiated by
the devotee, an avatar is sent by the deity. So, I think you
can say that the resulting entities are indistinguishable, but
they got there from opposite directions.
debate: according to the RMM model, the RE is more like a
heroformer, in Greg's model he is more like an avatar. (NB:
I write "more like" as it isn't nearly as clear cut as
what I write above).
____________________________________________________________
Nils Weinander
The world is a beautiful place and it's worth fighting for
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:33:43 EEST